Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 23:13:03 -0400 From: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org> Cc: YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh@gmail.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Release Engineering Team <re@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Apparent fxp regression in FreeBSD 8.4-RC3 Message-ID: <20130524031303.GC28865@glenbarber.us> In-Reply-To: <20130524030351.GA39091@icarus.home.lan> References: <20130508174721.GD1651@glenbarber.us> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305112240040.1240@familysquires.net> <CAG=rPVf0W2U4OwRUzVB5TgVVX%2BAD44VL1fBCtLMiqtDSL%2Bg4Vg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305161103370.1222@familysquires.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305232013110.14717@familysquires.net> <20130524010943.GA37252@icarus.home.lan> <20130524012117.GE1672@glenbarber.us> <20130524030351.GA39091@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--p2kqVDKq5asng8Dg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:03:51PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:21:17PM -0400, Glen Barber wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:09:43PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:18:33PM -0400, Michael L. Squires wrote: > > > > I've just tested 8.4-RC3 using a different Supermicro 1U box with a= fresh > > > > installation of 8.4-RC3. I had problems with the installation, wou= ldn't > > > > boot until I used a Windows 98 FDISK to write a master boot record > > > > (no idea why; this system uses an Adaptec SATA 1.5 6-channel PCI-X > > > > board with two > > > > drives in RAID 1). > > > >=20 > > > > Using the em0 interface there are no problems with DHCP; when I > > > > switch to the fxp0 interface the interface starts going up/down in > > > > the same manner as reported. > > > >=20 > > > > The problem appears associated with "world", not with the kernel (r= unning > > > > the 8.4 kernel with the 8.3 world does not have this problem). > > > >=20 > > > > This motherboard is an X5DPL-iGM with 2 Xeon 2.8GHz CPUs and 4 GB o= f RAM. > > > > The other unit (an earlier board) has a Serverworks chipset with a = single > > > > Xeon CPU but also with a 100Mbit Intel Pro100 Ethernet port and a 1= 000Mbit > > > > Intel Pro1000 Ethernet port. > > > >=20 > > > > This unit isn't doing anything useful, so testing isn't a problem. > > >=20 > > > Mike, Yong-Hyeon asked you a very important question which you didn't > > > answer: > > >=20 > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-May/073458.html > > >=20 > > > If you assign a static IP address, does fxp0 behave properly? > > >=20 > > > I'm also re-adding Yong-Hyeon to the CC list here. > > >=20 > >=20 > > At this point, I am not convinced we have a problem with what will turn > > out to be 8.4-RELEASE. > >=20 > > There have been several attempts to ensure the upgraded version is > > actually 8.4-RC3 (and again, 'uname -a' is not provided in this > > email...). > >=20 > > I find it very hard to believe that we have exactly one fxp(4) user > > upgrading to 8.4-*. > >=20 > > I'd really like to make sure that this is not an issue that will affect > > an uncountable number of users, but truthfully, at this point have to > > consider it a local configuration problem. >=20 > I have numerous Supermicro 1U boxes sitting in my garage from closing > down my hosting organisation back in August 2012. I am certain one or > two of them have Intel NICs that use fxp(4) -- the problem is that I > don't know what exact NIC and PHY model they use. >=20 > >From what I can tell, there are at least two systems Mike has which > experience this anomaly. One of those systems' dmesg: >=20 > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-May/073440.html >=20 > The relevant lines start at "fxp0: <Intel 82551 ..." and continue all > the way down to "pci0:0:8:0: bad VPD cksum, remain 14". I'm not sure if > the bad VPD checksum message is relevant to the fxp0 device or not. >=20 > The 2nd system is mentioned above/in this post: >=20 > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-May/073530.html >=20 > But there's no verbose dmesg etc. for the 2nd system so I don't know if > it has the same NIC/PHY. >=20 My understanding from the start of this thread is that "both" machines are actually the same machine, but with different combinations of userland/kernel. (No, not arguing anything - only one person can answer if my understanding is correct or not.) > The model of NIC and PHY matters greatly; most users don't seem to > realise how important this is, they think in terms of "Intel vs. > Broadcom vs. Realtek". >=20 > Output from "pciconf -lvbc", specifically the lines relevant to the fxp0 > device, from both systems, would be highly beneficial. >=20 > In the meantime, I'll head down to my garage to see if I can find those > fxp(4) boxes and see if they're 85551s (I sure hope I haven't pulled the > CPUs/RAM from them). If I find a match, I can try to reproduce this. >=20 It has been quite costly now (time) waiting for information on this particular issue at this point, unfortunately. Glen --p2kqVDKq5asng8Dg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRntq/AAoJEFJPDDeguUajYAMH/RlsVfEQPoevSEoY6t7qTWDN 0uDAuTtxjwYzaevF/nItLTDsDWLsW7ZYsJ/ELEu6ckZolMG1g3yDi63t4lZ7FWTu 4778n8FLQzFivfssjE3GgLQ5pSrHXE3+J2RB4uMT7ztA50Exg5/soSPi4ooI6NV8 xMVJqPdGox4WgvILQmckvfaspfcj2nYO5V7vSZs9/d2Usv4L/Z80JP9+BczXBP92 FJDchLbZGHv+LshT0Sj98OcmZVqHTahWnf2OgVtXKP9DFP0TF7e9NQ7o9+fxd0Ou gWXmzQTdzgX4cwQFhHNKmhpmtUO5EcPrVfzHzhQp3HCZ09Umccvmchg1DKt+kZA= =hCSz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --p2kqVDKq5asng8Dg--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130524031303.GC28865>